Paris Had Ample Warning of an Attack - Did They Want to Be Hit?

Paris Had Ample Warning of an Attack - Did They Want to Be Hit?

Conveniently, the Paris terror attack gave NATO the casus belli it needs to go all out in Syria

Originally appeared in German atNEOPresse. Translated by Boris Jaruselski

http://russia-insider.com/en/qui-bono-who-benefits-paris-attacks/ri11318



Originally appeared in German atNEOPresse. Translated by Boris Jaruselski

---

First of all: my condolences and deep sympathy are with the victims and their loved ones of last Friday's attack.

Once again, innocent people had to die for a policy for which they are not responsible. At best, they could attempt to change it only with protest. Once again, innocent people have to suffer because they were put in harm’s way by political actors. These political actors have placed themselves behind protective walls and troops of bodyguards — knowing fully well that they will never become victims of their own misanthropic policies.

After such events like the Paris attacks, the first question posted by political actors and the turbo-charged media is who the perpetrators are. As with other such events, both sides knew immediately who the perpetrators were. In this case it was the Islamic State. The turbo-charged media (almost) never asks the qui bono-question [Who benefits from this?]. The classic investigative approach of “follow the money” is also not pursued.

If Paris is another case of a false flag operation, or if it was conscientiously allowed to happen (something I personally believe, and that it was possibly supported by western intelligence services – something which is only my personal assessment; “Let it Happen on Purpose”) everyone can determine for themselves with the following list (and this is only a small extract and terribly irritating when contrasted with the official reporting) which doesn't appear in the mainstream press:

• Iraqi Intelligence Warned France of ISIS Attack Day Before Paris Assault
• CONFIRMED: French Government Knew Extremists BEFORE Attack
• “Forty grenades, 180 detonators and plastic explosives” stolen from French military base
• Breaking: French and German Police Knew Paris Attack Was Coming a Month Prior
• Paris Attacks: Multi-site Exercise planned for morning of Nov 13, 2015
• Before Paris Terrorist Attacks, CIA Director Brennan Met With French Intelligence DGSE Chief Bernard Bajolet: Report
• French Security Left Blind During November 13 Paris Terror Attacks

Back to the question of “Cui bono?”

The Islamic State, as a creation of the west, was part of the U.S.-plan to force regime change in Syria. Not only was IS financed by the proxy Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as the former head of US intelligence Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Michael Flynn admitted, but the U.S. purposely allowed IS to form. It was intended to be put up against Assad.

After Russia achieved in a short period of time what the US didn't manage to in over a year — everyone can decide for themselves —, if there was lack of will or incompetence, namely the weakening of the Islamic State, the alarm bells rang in Washington. How can one protect their own “baby” from the Russian air strikes?

Especially if one doesn't have the mandate of the Syrian government to become active on Syria's sovereign lands. Not even 48 hours after the Paris attacks, the French government ordered the area around Al-Raqqa to be attacked. That Al-Raqqa, which a week before was hit hard by the Russian military jets (and hence basically only empty IS structures were bombed by France) so that IS couldn’t move feely in Al-Raqqa as they once did.

There were previously IS check points in the centre and the outskirts of Al-Raqqa. But two days ago, the jihadis dismantled them. The fighters could no longer move freely though down town, bearing their weapons. They were forced to veil themselves and bear the weapons in the recesses of the veil, so as to prevent identification.

Paris views the events of last Friday as justification sufficient to proceed militarily in Syria. A large part of the French citizenry, as well as most of the western countries too, would be in accord with that. This is a justification, a wrong one of course, but nonetheless “acceptable” to many, which NATO didn't have until now. The tide seems to have swung more towards pro-war, respectively pro-war involvement.

Once again, nobody seems to want to recognize the relationships which are so obvious. It appears that Syria, which has the help of Russia, is about to dramatically weaken IS, if not beat them back. NATO members were missing the reason to become active in Syria themselves and thus clip Russia's ever increasing weight to an acceptable “size”. In the eyes of NATO and western governments, the attacks seem to have provided this reason. NATO virtually received the excuse to attack Syria. Something that the toxic gas attacks did not achieve is that they were carried out by one’s own side, then they were blamed on Assad by the West.

With the direct intervention by France and the U.S. (to be followed shortly by other countries, like Britain or Belgium), as much as it pains me to write this, the Third World War has started. Analogous to 9/11, respectively the assault on Afghanistan, a country is attacked without a declaration of war, although the perpetrators are not citizens of this country (9/11 Afghanistan, Pairs Belgium). Though this time around, Russia is not on the side of NATO/USA, but is pursuing its own opposing self-interest. A clash of these differing interests, in the shape of a direct confrontation, is only a matter of time. To be considered at the same time as well, equally analogous to 9/11, the Paris attacks can be viewed as a trigger for the alliance case. Article 5 of the NATO charter states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them may exercise their right of individual or collective self-defence, recognised in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and will assist the party or parties being attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

North Atlantic Charter: Washington DC, 4. April 1949

Now, since the French and Americans have received the “mandate” for Syria, the Syrian airspace is going to “get crowded”. An airspace that is so far being controlled by Russia and which NATO must dispute, if they want to “keep their creation alive” and with that, their interest in the region. Thanks to the events in Paris, the West has a “foot in the door” in Syria. Is this perhaps the answer to Cui bono?

Conclusion: I am aware, that my conclusions and statements will provoke controversy and discussions. It should. Because this pre-digested analysis, opinions and proceedings, handed down to us by the turbo-charged media, are just as well in need of questioning as are mine. I am looking forward to a spirited discussion.

Originally appeared in German atNEOPresse. Translated by Boris Jaruselski

---

First of all: my condolences and deep sympathy are with the victims and their loved ones of last Friday's attack.

Once again, innocent people had to die for a policy for which they are not responsible. At best, they could attempt to change it only with protest. Once again, innocent people have to suffer because they were put in harm’s way by political actors. These political actors have placed themselves behind protective walls and troops of bodyguards — knowing fully well that they will never become victims of their own misanthropic policies.

After such events like the Paris attacks, the first question posted by political actors and the turbo-charged media is who the perpetrators are. As with other such events, both sides knew immediately who the perpetrators were. In this case it was the Islamic State. The turbo-charged media (almost) never asks the qui bono-question [Who benefits from this?]. The classic investigative approach of “follow the money” is also not pursued.

If Paris is another case of a false flag operation, or if it was conscientiously allowed to happen (something I personally believe, and that it was possibly supported by western intelligence services – something which is only my personal assessment; “Let it Happen on Purpose”) everyone can determine for themselves with the following list (and this is only a small extract and terribly irritating when contrasted with the official reporting) which doesn't appear in the mainstream press:

• Iraqi Intelligence Warned France of ISIS Attack Day Before Paris Assault
• CONFIRMED: French Government Knew Extremists BEFORE Attack
• “Forty grenades, 180 detonators and plastic explosives” stolen from French military base
• Breaking: French and German Police Knew Paris Attack Was Coming a Month Prior
• Paris Attacks: Multi-site Exercise planned for morning of Nov 13, 2015
• Before Paris Terrorist Attacks, CIA Director Brennan Met With French Intelligence DGSE Chief Bernard Bajolet: Report
• French Security Left Blind During November 13 Paris Terror Attacks

Back to the question of “Cui bono?”

The Islamic State, as a creation of the west, was part of the U.S.-plan to force regime change in Syria. Not only was IS financed by the proxy Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as the former head of US intelligence Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Michael Flynn admitted, but the U.S. purposely allowed IS to form. It was intended to be put up against Assad.

After Russia achieved in a short period of time what the US didn't manage to in over a year — everyone can decide for themselves —, if there was lack of will or incompetence, namely the weakening of the Islamic State, the alarm bells rang in Washington. How can one protect their own “baby” from the Russian air strikes?

Especially if one doesn't have the mandate of the Syrian government to become active on Syria's sovereign lands. Not even 48 hours after the Paris attacks, the French government ordered the area around Al-Raqqa to be attacked. That Al-Raqqa, which a week before was hit hard by the Russian military jets (and hence basically only empty IS structures were bombed by France) so that IS couldn’t move feely in Al-Raqqa as they once did.

There were previously IS check points in the centre and the outskirts of Al-Raqqa. But two days ago, the jihadis dismantled them. The fighters could no longer move freely though down town, bearing their weapons. They were forced to veil themselves and bear the weapons in the recesses of the veil, so as to prevent identification.

Paris views the events of last Friday as justification sufficient to proceed militarily in Syria. A large part of the French citizenry, as well as most of the western countries too, would be in accord with that. This is a justification, a wrong one of course, but nonetheless “acceptable” to many, which NATO didn't have until now. The tide seems to have swung more towards pro-war, respectively pro-war involvement.

Once again, nobody seems to want to recognize the relationships which are so obvious. It appears that Syria, which has the help of Russia, is about to dramatically weaken IS, if not beat them back. NATO members were missing the reason to become active in Syria themselves and thus clip Russia's ever increasing weight to an acceptable “size”. In the eyes of NATO and western governments, the attacks seem to have provided this reason. NATO virtually received the excuse to attack Syria. Something that the toxic gas attacks did not achieve is that they were carried out by one’s own side, then they were blamed on Assad by the West.

With the direct intervention by France and the U.S. (to be followed shortly by other countries, like Britain or Belgium), as much as it pains me to write this, the Third World War has started. Analogous to 9/11, respectively the assault on Afghanistan, a country is attacked without a declaration of war, although the perpetrators are not citizens of this country (9/11 Afghanistan, Pairs Belgium). Though this time around, Russia is not on the side of NATO/USA, but is pursuing its own opposing self-interest. A clash of these differing interests, in the shape of a direct confrontation, is only a matter of time. To be considered at the same time as well, equally analogous to 9/11, the Paris attacks can be viewed as a trigger for the alliance case. Article 5 of the NATO charter states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them may exercise their right of individual or collective self-defence, recognised in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and will assist the party or parties being attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

North Atlantic Charter: Washington DC, 4. April 1949

Now, since the French and Americans have received the “mandate” for Syria, the Syrian airspace is going to “get crowded”. An airspace that is so far being controlled by Russia and which NATO must dispute, if they want to “keep their creation alive” and with that, their interest in the region. Thanks to the events in Paris, the West has a “foot in the door” in Syria. Is this perhaps the answer to Cui bono?

Conclusion: I am aware, that my conclusions and statements will provoke controversy and discussions. It should. Because this pre-digested analysis, opinions and proceedings, handed down to us by the turbo-charged media, are just as well in need of questioning as are mine. I am looking forward to a spirited discussion.

Originally appeared in German at NEOPresse. Translated by Boris Jaruselski
First of all: my condolences and deep sympathy are with the victims and their loved ones of last Friday's attack.
Once again, innocent people had to die for a policy for which they are not responsible. At best, they could attempt to change it only with protest. Once again, innocent people have to suffer because they were put in harm’s way by political actors. These political actors have placed themselves behind protective walls and troops of bodyguards — knowing fully well that they will never become victims of their own misanthropic policies.
After such events like the Paris attacks, the first question posted by political actors and the turbo-charged media is who the perpetrators are. As with other such events, both sides knew immediately who the perpetrators were. In this case it was the Islamic State. The turbo-charged media (almost) never asks the qui bono-question [Who benefits from this?]. The classic investigative approach of “follow the money” is also not pursued.
If Paris is another case of a false flag operation, or if it was conscientiously allowed to happen (something I personally believe, and that it was possibly supported by western intelligence services – something which is only my personal assessment; “Let it Happen on Purpose”) everyone can determine for themselves with the following list (and this is only a small extract and terribly irritating when contrasted with the official reporting) which doesn't appear in the mainstream press:
Iraqi Intelligence Warned France of ISIS Attack Day Before Paris AssaultCONFIRMED: French Government Knew Extremists BEFORE Attack“Forty grenades, 180 detonators and plastic explosives” stolen from French military baseBreaking: French and German Police Knew Paris Attack Was Coming a Month PriorParis Attacks: Multi-site Exercise planned for morning of Nov 13, 2015Before Paris Terrorist Attacks, CIA Director Brennan Met With French Intelligence DGSE Chief Bernard Bajolet: ReportFrench Security Left Blind During November 13 Paris Terror AttacksBack to the question of “Cui bono?”
The Islamic State, as a creation of the west, was part of the U.S.-plan to force regime change in Syria. Not only was IS financed by the proxy Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as the former head of US intelligence Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Michael Flynn admitted, but the U.S. purposely allowed IS to form. It was intended to be put up against Assad.
After Russia achieved in a short period of time what the US didn't manage to in over a year — everyone can decide for themselves —, if there was lack of will or incompetence, namely the weakening of the Islamic State, the alarm bells rang in Washington. How can one protect their own “baby” from the Russian air strikes?

Especially if one doesn't have the mandate of the Syrian government to become active on Syria's sovereign lands. Not even 48 hours after the Paris attacks, the French government ordered the area around Al-Raqqa to be attacked. That Al-Raqqa, which a week before was hit hard by the Russian military jets (and hence basically only empty IS structures were bombed by France) so that IS couldn’t move feely in Al-Raqqa as they once did.
There were previously IS check points in the centre and the outskirts of Al-Raqqa. But two days ago, the jihadis dismantled them. The fighters could no longer move freely though down town, bearing their weapons. They were forced to veil themselves and bear the weapons in the recesses of the veil, so as to prevent identification.
Paris views the events of last Friday as justification sufficient to proceed militarily in Syria. A large part of the French citizenry, as well as most of the western countries too, would be in accord with that. This is a justification, a wrong one of course, but nonetheless “acceptable” to many, which NATO didn't have until now. The tide seems to have swung more towards pro-war, respectively pro-war involvement.
Once again, nobody seems to want to recognize the relationships which are so obvious. It appears that Syria, which has the help of Russia, is about to dramatically weaken IS, if not beat them back. NATO members were missing the reason to become active in Syria themselves and thus clip Russia's ever increasing weight to an acceptable “size”. In the eyes of NATO and western governments, the attacks seem to have provided this reason. NATO virtually received the excuse to attack Syria. Something that the toxic gas attacks did not achieve is that they were carried out by one’s own side, then they were blamed on Assad by the West.
With the direct intervention by France and the U.S. (to be followed shortly by other countries, like Britain or Belgium), as much as it pains me to write this, the Third World War has started. Analogous to 9/11, respectively the assault on Afghanistan, a country is attacked without a declaration of war, although the perpetrators are not citizens of this country (9/11 Afghanistan, Pairs Belgium). Though this time around, Russia is not on the side of NATO/USA, but is pursuing its own opposing self-interest. A clash of these differing interests, in the shape of a direct confrontation, is only a matter of time. To be considered at the same time as well, equally analogous to 9/11, the Paris attacks can be viewed as a trigger for the alliance case. Article 5 of the NATO charter states:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them may exercise their right of individual or collective self-defence, recognised in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and will assist the party or parties being attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
North Atlantic Charter: Washington DC, 4. April 1949Now, since the French and Americans have received the “mandate” for Syria, the Syrian airspace is going to “get crowded”. An airspace that is so far being controlled by Russia and which NATO must dispute, if they want to “keep their creation alive” and with that, their interest in the region. Thanks to the events in Paris, the West has a “foot in the door” in Syria. Is this perhaps the answer to Cui bono?
Conclusion: I am aware, that my conclusions and statements will provoke controversy and discussions. It should. Because this pre-digested analysis, opinions and proceedings, handed down to us by the turbo-charged media, are just as well in need of questioning as are mine. I am looking forward to a spirited discussion.

Originally appeared in German atNEOPresse. Translated by Boris Jaruselski

---

First of all: my condolences and deep sympathy are with the victims and their loved ones of last Friday's attack.

Once again, innocent people had to die for a policy for which they are not responsible. At best, they could attempt to change it only with protest. Once again, innocent people have to suffer because they were put in harm’s way by political actors. These political actors have placed themselves behind protective walls and troops of bodyguards — knowing fully well that they will never become victims of their own misanthropic policies.

After such events like the Paris attacks, the first question posted by political actors and the turbo-charged media is who the perpetrators are. As with other such events, both sides knew immediately who the perpetrators were. In this case it was the Islamic State. The turbo-charged media (almost) never asks the qui bono-question [Who benefits from this?]. The classic investigative approach of “follow the money” is also not pursued.

If Paris is another case of a false flag operation, or if it was conscientiously allowed to happen (something I personally believe, and that it was possibly supported by western intelligence services – something which is only my personal assessment; “Let it Happen on Purpose”) everyone can determine for themselves with the following list (and this is only a small extract and terribly irritating when contrasted with the official reporting) which doesn't appear in the mainstream press:

• Iraqi Intelligence Warned France of ISIS Attack Day Before Paris Assault
• CONFIRMED: French Government Knew Extremists BEFORE Attack
• “Forty grenades, 180 detonators and plastic explosives” stolen from French military base
• Breaking: French and German Police Knew Paris Attack Was Coming a Month Prior
• Paris Attacks: Multi-site Exercise planned for morning of Nov 13, 2015
• Before Paris Terrorist Attacks, CIA Director Brennan Met With French Intelligence DGSE Chief Bernard Bajolet: Report
• French Security Left Blind During November 13 Paris Terror Attacks

Back to the question of “Cui bono?”

The Islamic State, as a creation of the west, was part of the U.S.-plan to force regime change in Syria. Not only was IS financed by the proxy Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as the former head of US intelligence Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Michael Flynn admitted, but the U.S. purposely allowed IS to form. It was intended to be put up against Assad.

After Russia achieved in a short period of time what the US didn't manage to in over a year — everyone can decide for themselves —, if there was lack of will or incompetence, namely the weakening of the Islamic State, the alarm bells rang in Washington. How can one protect their own “baby” from the Russian air strikes?

Especially if one doesn't have the mandate of the Syrian government to become active on Syria's sovereign lands. Not even 48 hours after the Paris attacks, the French government ordered the area around Al-Raqqa to be attacked. That Al-Raqqa, which a week before was hit hard by the Russian military jets (and hence basically only empty IS structures were bombed by France) so that IS couldn’t move feely in Al-Raqqa as they once did.

There were previously IS check points in the centre and the outskirts of Al-Raqqa. But two days ago, the jihadis dismantled them. The fighters could no longer move freely though down town, bearing their weapons. They were forced to veil themselves and bear the weapons in the recesses of the veil, so as to prevent identification.

Paris views the events of last Friday as justification sufficient to proceed militarily in Syria. A large part of the French citizenry, as well as most of the western countries too, would be in accord with that. This is a justification, a wrong one of course, but nonetheless “acceptable” to many, which NATO didn't have until now. The tide seems to have swung more towards pro-war, respectively pro-war involvement.

Once again, nobody seems to want to recognize the relationships which are so obvious. It appears that Syria, which has the help of Russia, is about to dramatically weaken IS, if not beat them back. NATO members were missing the reason to become active in Syria themselves and thus clip Russia's ever increasing weight to an acceptable “size”. In the eyes of NATO and western governments, the attacks seem to have provided this reason. NATO virtually received the excuse to attack Syria. Something that the toxic gas attacks did not achieve is that they were carried out by one’s own side, then they were blamed on Assad by the West.

With the direct intervention by France and the U.S. (to be followed shortly by other countries, like Britain or Belgium), as much as it pains me to write this, the Third World War has started. Analogous to 9/11, respectively the assault on Afghanistan, a country is attacked without a declaration of war, although the perpetrators are not citizens of this country (9/11 Afghanistan, Pairs Belgium). Though this time around, Russia is not on the side of NATO/USA, but is pursuing its own opposing self-interest. A clash of these differing interests, in the shape of a direct confrontation, is only a matter of time. To be considered at the same time as well, equally analogous to 9/11, the Paris attacks can be viewed as a trigger for the alliance case. Article 5 of the NATO charter states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them may exercise their right of individual or collective self-defence, recognised in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and will assist the party or parties being attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

North Atlantic Charter: Washington DC, 4. April 1949

Now, since the French and Americans have received the “mandate” for Syria, the Syrian airspace is going to “get crowded”. An airspace that is so far being controlled by Russia and which NATO must dispute, if they want to “keep their creation alive” and with that, their interest in the region. Thanks to the events in Paris, the West has a “foot in the door” in Syria. Is this perhaps the answer to Cui bono?

Conclusion: I am aware, that my conclusions and statements will provoke controversy and discussions. It should. Because this pre-digested analysis, opinions and proceedings, handed down to us by the turbo-charged media, are just as well in need of questioning as are mine. I am looking forward to a spirited discussion.

Originally appeared in German atNEOPresse. Translated by Boris Jaruselski

---

First of all: my condolences and deep sympathy are with the victims and their loved ones of last Friday's attack.

Once again, innocent people had to die for a policy for which they are not responsible. At best, they could attempt to change it only with protest. Once again, innocent people have to suffer because they were put in harm’s way by political actors. These political actors have placed themselves behind protective walls and troops of bodyguards — knowing fully well that they will never become victims of their own misanthropic policies.

After such events like the Paris attacks, the first question posted by political actors and the turbo-charged media is who the perpetrators are. As with other such events, both sides knew immediately who the perpetrators were. In this case it was the Islamic State. The turbo-charged media (almost) never asks the qui bono-question [Who benefits from this?]. The classic investigative approach of “follow the money” is also not pursued.

If Paris is another case of a false flag operation, or if it was conscientiously allowed to happen (something I personally believe, and that it was possibly supported by western intelligence services – something which is only my personal assessment; “Let it Happen on Purpose”) everyone can determine for themselves with the following list (and this is only a small extract and terribly irritating when contrasted with the official reporting) which doesn't appear in the mainstream press:

• Iraqi Intelligence Warned France of ISIS Attack Day Before Paris Assault
• CONFIRMED: French Government Knew Extremists BEFORE Attack
• “Forty grenades, 180 detonators and plastic explosives” stolen from French military base
• Breaking: French and German Police Knew Paris Attack Was Coming a Month Prior
• Paris Attacks: Multi-site Exercise planned for morning of Nov 13, 2015
• Before Paris Terrorist Attacks, CIA Director Brennan Met With French Intelligence DGSE Chief Bernard Bajolet: Report
• French Security Left Blind During November 13 Paris Terror Attacks

Back to the question of “Cui bono?”

The Islamic State, as a creation of the west, was part of the U.S.-plan to force regime change in Syria. Not only was IS financed by the proxy Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as the former head of US intelligence Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Michael Flynn admitted, but the U.S. purposely allowed IS to form. It was intended to be put up against Assad.

After Russia achieved in a short period of time what the US didn't manage to in over a year — everyone can decide for themselves —, if there was lack of will or incompetence, namely the weakening of the Islamic State, the alarm bells rang in Washington. How can one protect their own “baby” from the Russian air strikes?

Especially if one doesn't have the mandate of the Syrian government to become active on Syria's sovereign lands. Not even 48 hours after the Paris attacks, the French government ordered the area around Al-Raqqa to be attacked. That Al-Raqqa, which a week before was hit hard by the Russian military jets (and hence basically only empty IS structures were bombed by France) so that IS couldn’t move feely in Al-Raqqa as they once did.

There were previously IS check points in the centre and the outskirts of Al-Raqqa. But two days ago, the jihadis dismantled them. The fighters could no longer move freely though down town, bearing their weapons. They were forced to veil themselves and bear the weapons in the recesses of the veil, so as to prevent identification.

Paris views the events of last Friday as justification sufficient to proceed militarily in Syria. A large part of the French citizenry, as well as most of the western countries too, would be in accord with that. This is a justification, a wrong one of course, but nonetheless “acceptable” to many, which NATO didn't have until now. The tide seems to have swung more towards pro-war, respectively pro-war involvement.

Once again, nobody seems to want to recognize the relationships which are so obvious. It appears that Syria, which has the help of Russia, is about to dramatically weaken IS, if not beat them back. NATO members were missing the reason to become active in Syria themselves and thus clip Russia's ever increasing weight to an acceptable “size”. In the eyes of NATO and western governments, the attacks seem to have provided this reason. NATO virtually received the excuse to attack Syria. Something that the toxic gas attacks did not achieve is that they were carried out by one’s own side, then they were blamed on Assad by the West.

With the direct intervention by France and the U.S. (to be followed shortly by other countries, like Britain or Belgium), as much as it pains me to write this, the Third World War has started. Analogous to 9/11, respectively the assault on Afghanistan, a country is attacked without a declaration of war, although the perpetrators are not citizens of this country (9/11 Afghanistan, Pairs Belgium). Though this time around, Russia is not on the side of NATO/USA, but is pursuing its own opposing self-interest. A clash of these differing interests, in the shape of a direct confrontation, is only a matter of time. To be considered at the same time as well, equally analogous to 9/11, the Paris attacks can be viewed as a trigger for the alliance case. Article 5 of the NATO charter states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them may exercise their right of individual or collective self-defence, recognised in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and will assist the party or parties being attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

North Atlantic Charter: Washington DC, 4. April 1949

Now, since the French and Americans have received the “mandate” for Syria, the Syrian airspace is going to “get crowded”. An airspace that is so far being controlled by Russia and which NATO must dispute, if they want to “keep their creation alive” and with that, their interest in the region. Thanks to the events in Paris, the West has a “foot in the door” in Syria. Is this perhaps the answer to Cui bono?

Conclusion: I am aware, that my conclusions and statements will provoke controversy and discussions. It should. Because this pre-digested analysis, opinions and proceedings, handed down to us by the turbo-charged media, are just as well in need of questioning as are mine. I am looking forward to a spirited discussion.

First of all: my condolences and deep sympathy are with the victims and their loved ones of last Friday's attack.

Once again, innocent people had to die for a policy for which they are not responsible. At best, they could attempt to change it only with protest. Once again, innocent people have to suffer because they were put in harm’s way by political actors. These political actors have placed themselves behind protective walls and troops of bodyguards — knowing fully well that they will never become victims of their own misanthropic policies.

After such events like the Paris attacks, the first question posted by political actors and the turbo-charged media is who the perpetrators are. As with other such events, both sides knew immediately who the perpetrators were. In this case it was the Islamic State. The turbo-charged media (almost) never asks the qui bono-question [Who benefits from this?]. The classic investigative approach of “follow the money” is also not pursued.

If Paris is another case of a false flag operation, or if it was conscientiously allowed to happen (something I personally believe, and that it was possibly supported by western intelligence services – something which is only my personal assessment; “Let it Happen on Purpose”) everyone can determine for themselves with the following list (and this is only a small extract and terribly irritating when contrasted with the official reporting) which doesn't appear in the mainstream press:

• Iraqi Intelligence Warned France of ISIS Attack Day Before Paris Assault
• CONFIRMED: French Government Knew Extremists BEFORE Attack
• “Forty grenades, 180 detonators and plastic explosives” stolen from French military base
• Breaking: French and German Police Knew Paris Attack Was Coming a Month Prior
• Paris Attacks: Multi-site Exercise planned for morning of Nov 13, 2015
• Before Paris Terrorist Attacks, CIA Director Brennan Met With French Intelligence DGSE Chief Bernard Bajolet: Report
• French Security Left Blind During November 13 Paris Terror Attacks

Back to the question of “Cui bono?”

The Islamic State, as a creation of the west, was part of the U.S.-plan to force regime change in Syria. Not only was IS financed by the proxy Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as the former head of US intelligence Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Michael Flynn admitted, but the U.S. purposely allowed IS to form. It was intended to be put up against Assad.

After Russia achieved in a short period of time what the US didn't manage to in over a year — everyone can decide for themselves —, if there was lack of will or incompetence, namely the weakening of the Islamic State, the alarm bells rang in Washington. How can one protect their own “baby” from the Russian air strikes?

Especially if one doesn't have the mandate of the Syrian government to become active on Syria's sovereign lands. Not even 48 hours after the Paris attacks, the French government ordered the area around Al-Raqqa to be attacked. That Al-Raqqa, which a week before was hit hard by the Russian military jets (and hence basically only empty IS structures were bombed by France) so that IS couldn’t move feely in Al-Raqqa as they once did.

There were previously IS check points in the centre and the outskirts of Al-Raqqa. But two days ago, the jihadis dismantled them. The fighters could no longer move freely though down town, bearing their weapons. They were forced to veil themselves and bear the weapons in the recesses of the veil, so as to prevent identification.

Paris views the events of last Friday as justification sufficient to proceed militarily in Syria. A large part of the French citizenry, as well as most of the western countries too, would be in accord with that. This is a justification, a wrong one of course, but nonetheless “acceptable” to many, which NATO didn't have until now. The tide seems to have swung more towards pro-war, respectively pro-war involvement.

Once again, nobody seems to want to recognize the relationships which are so obvious. It appears that Syria, which has the help of Russia, is about to dramatically weaken IS, if not beat them back. NATO members were missing the reason to become active in Syria themselves and thus clip Russia's ever increasing weight to an acceptable “size”. In the eyes of NATO and western governments, the attacks seem to have provided this reason. NATO virtually received the excuse to attack Syria. Something that the toxic gas attacks did not achieve is that they were carried out by one’s own side, then they were blamed on Assad by the West.

With the direct intervention by France and the U.S. (to be followed shortly by other countries, like Britain or Belgium), as much as it pains me to write this, the Third World War has started. Analogous to 9/11, respectively the assault on Afghanistan, a country is attacked without a declaration of war, although the perpetrators are not citizens of this country (9/11 Afghanistan, Pairs Belgium). Though this time around, Russia is not on the side of NATO/USA, but is pursuing its own opposing self-interest. A clash of these differing interests, in the shape of a direct confrontation, is only a matter of time. To be considered at the same time as well, equally analogous to 9/11, the Paris attacks can be viewed as a trigger for the alliance case. Article 5 of the NATO charter states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them may exercise their right of individual or collective self-defence, recognised in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and will assist the party or parties being attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

North Atlantic Charter: Washington DC, 4. April 1949

Now, since the French and Americans have received the “mandate” for Syria, the Syrian airspace is going to “get crowded”. An airspace that is so far being controlled by Russia and which NATO must dispute, if they want to “keep their creation alive” and with that, their interest in the region. Thanks to the events in Paris, the West has a “foot in the door” in Syria. Is this perhaps the answer to Cui bono?

Conclusion: I am aware, that my conclusions and statements will provoke controversy and discussions. It should. Because this pre-digested analysis, opinions and proceedings, handed down to us by the turbo-charged media, are just as well in need of questioning as are mine. I am looking forward to a spirited discussion.